/lit/ - Literature

>i am an anarchist
>people should pay more taxes
he's a fucking spastic

>>14567948
>i am an anarchist
based
>people should pay more taxes
cringe

his vocal fry is comfy

>>14568038
his speeches make me fall asleep

Studying linguistics for most of your life sucks the soul out of you

t. have a friend who went into linguistics and he was never the same

>>14567941
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectualization

>>14567941
Being a soulless Jew will do that to you

Chomsky seems like a legitimately nice guy, but he is NOT an anarchist. He’s basically a left-leaning neoliberal larping as an anarchist.

>>14568059
Grow up

>>14568050
This. Linguists write like autistic mathematicians.

>>14567941
This is the disposition any philosophic person should have
You should be able to consciously disengage your ego from your ideas

>>14568210
How do I do that?

>>14568218
By reading a lot and thinking a lot
Most importantly by understanding opposing viewpoints

>>14568092
Bullshit.

His philosophy is deeply, deeply rooted in the notion of dialectical linguistics as the keystone of all human thought. He takes this theory very seriously, and so he always feels like he's speaking about matters-of-fact. This is reinforced by his own immense cognitive achievements and knowledge of history. That's all. He thinks he is speaking literal facts, and facts have no emotions.

>>14568225
I think an important note is not to just think of it as empathizing with opposing stances, but just different stances period. People who take the strict yea-nea dialectic riots often become fence sitters. Now the ultimate argument may be a yea-nea one, but the progression of an argument should be organic rather than reactionary.

>>14568099
Quite. Desoulled shekelmeister would be a more poignant elucidation.

>>14567941
How is this site so unemotional?

>>14568387
any sources to into dialectical linguistics?

>>14568199
which ironic considering you'd think they'd be better at communicating not worse. chomsky is a fucking hack

>Any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be.
>This is very different from the tree or root, which plots a point, fixes an order. The linguistic
>tree on the Chomsky model still begins at a point S and proceeds by dichotomy.
>On the contrary, not every trait in a rhizome is necessarily linked to a
>linguistic feature: semiotic chains of every nature are connected to very
>diverse modes of coding (biological, political, economic, etc.) that bring
>into play not only different regimes of signs but also states of things of differing status.
>Collective assemblages of enunciation function directly
>within machinic assemblages; it is not impossible to make a radical break
>between regimes of signs and their objects. Even when linguistics claims to
>confine itself to what is explicit and to make no presuppositions about language,
>it is still in the sphere of a discourse implying particular modes of
>assemblage and types of social power. Chomsky's grammaticality, the
>categorical S symbol that dominates every sentence, is more fundamentally a
>marker of power than a syntactic marker: you will construct grammatically
>correct sentences, you will divide each statement into a noun phrase and a
>verb phrase (first dichotomy . . .). Our criticism of these linguistic models
>is not that they are too abstract but, on the contrary, that they are not
>abstract enough, that they do not reach the abstract machine that connects
>a language to the semantic and pragmatic contents of statements, to collective
>assemblages of enunciation, to a whole micropolitics of the social
field.

dude's a genius obviously

>>14569150
"Language and Mind" is probably the best exposition of this. Its Chomsky's own thing, really. He uses the dialectical evolution of language as a way to understand human consciousness through history, in the present, and to predict the future. Its a powerful idea, because it can explain many things, though I think it has weakspots (especially in predicting the future, as he does)

>>14567948
>>14567958
Do you even know anarchy?

>>14568210
So not Chomsky? Dude had a personality like ambien but to say he divorces his ego from his statements is false.

>>14567948
He means that social democracy is better than unregulated capitalism but he still wants anarchy.

>>14570092
> I oppose the government
> The government deserves more money from taxpayers

How much mental gymnastics will you go through to justify this hypocrisy?

>>14570388
> I support freedom but I still think that the Nazis are better than the alternatives.

It's the same logic.

>>14569129
Being soulless anons will do that to you

He's incredibly boring, it's a true shame his writings are just an endless barrage of evidence and statistics.

I know he says a key part of media bias is that you only get given 5 minutes to explain something that goes against the narrative, which is virtually impossible, but the dude could have written a far more condensed edition of manufacturing consent and reached a much higher audience. That book was so dry.

>>14570410
>Muh anons.

Reminder that this hypocritical piece of shit unironically supported the Khmer Rouge, despite the fact Pol Pot would send him to the killing fields in a nanosecond for wearing glasses

>>14570448
Yeah, that was me.

>>14570485
Are you dumb or just work for the pentagon?

>>14569879
Deluze pill swallowed.
>>14570940
Isn't MIT a branch of the pentagon? >>14567941
Basically hes intellectually arrogant and morally self righteous. Look at the way he supported kibbutzim initiatives without probing the underlying significance of zionism's relation with nazism.

The man was a left gatekeeper and the best kind of cia plant. One that doesn't even realise it. This is why jews should stay jews.

>>14568092
How is he a neoliberal? He's been criticizing them for decades.

>>14567941
why does he hate zizek?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Bv2MKY7uI

>>14572646
What a load of nonsense. This is so poorly constructed. Many times someone's view of reality requires a fair deal of construction within literature.

But this individual has defined 'legitimacy'... how? Some could easily argue that a totalitarian regime has more legitimacy than a democratic one, so where does this 'moral legitimacy' come from?

As opposed to issuing restraints on modern governments or systems based on the people, the writers who have chosen to frame their system, have essentially described the individual's wills subject to the restrictions of others, like within Bentham's theory of Morals and Game Theory (to help describe the field of Ethics).

It just simply isn't practical to leave it up to a mass of people to decide what is 'just' with regards to the governance of that mass of people. The mass of people have more factors going on within their lives that actually determine or predispose them to think about a certain idea a certain way before they need to collectivize in the first place.

It's not just 'up to the people' anyway, there are institutions in place that will not allow 'the people' to collectivize and destroy them. Institutions that are necessary for the human race's existence and inherently predispose these individuals to prefer the existence of those institutions over others. There is no conceivable way that Anarchism could possibly function under an 'absolute' democracy, which is essentially what Noam Chomsky is here describing.

I would have like to have read his literature at some point, but stuff like this puts some doubt into whether he has said anything meaningful at all. :3

>>14567948
>I am an anarchist
>I want capitalist neo-feudalism

>>14567948
>I don't know what anarchy is and have the same perception of it I had when I was 14
>Of course companies should be allowed to fire anyone for any reason. What's anti-libertarian about that?

>>14570399
So... What's wrong with it logic-wise?

>>14568050
can confirm
just 4 years of linguistics made me a broken man

>>14568092
based and bob blackpilled
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-chomsky-nod

>>14567948
He takes the view that it's both big-government and big-business that are the problem, why can't they fight each other? You worried about your corporation-fu?

>>14567941
No he's a conspiracy theorist

I loved when he btfo molymeme

>>14573865
No he's just a moron who doesn't grasp the difference between economic and political power, either intentionally or through sheer inability to think abstractly

>>14567941
it's the price you pay to achieve his level of based

>>14573101
>>Of course companies should be allowed to fire anyone for any reason. What's anti-libertarian about that?
literally nothing

>>14573224
Did you drop out? Or did you get a BA or something? What are you doing now?

I'm a 21yo Swissfag struggling with his BA thesis in linguistics at the moment.

>>14575021
>Swiss
>Struggle

>>14575021
>Swiss struggle
And I thought Swiss are big IQ

>>14567941
Chomsky is very emotional and empathetic. I imagine this has been subdued over many years of academia and atrocities. This excerpt from an interview from the ‘80s has Chomsky recalling his feelings during WWII:
> I also recall being appalled by the treatment of German POWs. For some reason, there were some in a camp right next to my high school, and it was considered the red-blooded “thing-to-do” to taunt them across the barbed wire. That struck me as disgraceful at the time, though I was much more of a committed anti-Nazi than the kids engaging in this sport. I recall bitter arguments about it.

>I remember on the day of the Hiroshima bombing, for example, I remember that I literally couldn’t talk to anybody. There was nobody. I just walked off by myself. I was at a summer camp at the time, and I walked off into the woods and stayed alone for a couple of hours when I heard about it. I could never talk to anyone about it and never understood anyone’s reaction. I felt completely isolated.

>>14575554
This.
He just doesn't show his emotions.

I'm not autistic (doc confirmed) yet I don't feel love, ever. What the fuck is my problem?

>>14570086
wot does he have to say about the internet

>>14575914
you were raped as a baby so you have neuropathway association between emotion and death. you have windows defender in your brain against emotion because it might kill you.

>>14575554
>though I was much more of a committed anti-Nazi than the kids engaging in this sport. I recall bitter arguments about it.
Does this guy ever stop patting himself on the back?

>>14575951
that's not true. I've had a great upbringing of supportive people

>>14576878
No you were raped as a baby anon
You just repressed the memory

>>14567941
I think he is just senile now.

>>14569879
This shit is exactly why I I have no qualms about ignoring the fuck out of Deleuze. He doesn't even seem to understate that Chomsky was very explicit about the purpose and limitations of his models, and just waffles on about how his rhizomes are all free and shit, as this was an argument against emergent hierarchical structures being theorized.

>>14570392
Yeah, wrong. Anarchists love government and want more of it. They hate hierarchical structures for limiting and containing government. Fascism is when a small group of people keep all the government to themselves which is bad, Anarchism is when you need to engage in dialogue with 12 differing people's committees to get approval to tie your shoelaces which is good.

>>14572994
are you the anon with whom I conversed in a Bentham thread from like a week ago? the similarity is striking
>>14568092
>>14573851
this, he said in multiple interviews that introducing anarchism at the present level of societal development where you have atomized individuals and suppression of collective organizations like trade unions etc. would be a grave mistake which ough to beg a question - what distinguishes him from Marxists who think that the state ought to become a dictatorship of the proletariat and after that slowly but continuously and systematically wither away